|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 4, 2014 10:59:59 GMT -5
This article appeared in the Team Stream Newsletters, and is someone's opinion of the topp 100 players of all time.
To say the least, I have some real issues with some of their selections.
Here's a few.
#20 Christy Mathewson #19 Mel Ott #18 Jimmy Foxx #17 Ken Griffey #16 Joe Dimaggio #15 Roberto Clemente #14 Mickey Mantle #13 Honus Wagner #12 Greg Maddux #11 Rogers Hornsby #10 Cy Young # 9 Stan Musial #8 Lou Gherig # 7 Walter Johnson # 6 Ty Cobb # 5 Ted Williams # 4 Hank Aaron # 3 Barry Bonds # 2 Willie Mays # 1 Babe Rugh
I have no argument with # 1 and 2. Most people forget that Babe Ruth was an awfully good pitcher before he became known for his HR exploits. In fact, Babe held the record for most consecutive shut out innings in the World Series until it was broken by Whitey Ford.
But I do have a huge problem with Bonds being listed at # 3. And this is the problem I have with most of these lists; the seem to focus ONLY upon hitting ability, and little more.
Some other arguements I have;
@ Cobb listed at 6, and Teddy Baseball at 5.
What? Cobb could hit, run, steal bases and play superb defense... Ted was just a hitter
@jeter at 41, and Joe Morgan at 48.
Again I say, What? Joe simply could do more things on the field and at the bat then Jeter could. Period.
@ Pujols at 21. That's absurd! Again, a hitter, so-so to above average in the field.
@ Joe Dimaggio at 18, behind the likes of Clemons and Honus Wagner. No question, Honus was a great player. Both were superb in the field, but Joe hit for more power, drove in more runs.
@ As much as I dislike Pete Rose, him being at 37 is an atrocity. Everyone seems to forget what a good defensive player he was, STARING at 3B, LF, RF, and 2B.
@bonds at # 3?
Please. Just put a gun to my head and shoot me. Let's ignore the steriod issue for a moment. Yeah, Barry could hit, and yeah, he was a pretty good basesteal and LF. But he couldn't throw! He couldn't! You can't rank him in front of Aaron who played in an era was basestealing wasn't a big deal! If it had been, he and Mays would have had a ton more! Especially Willie!
I can't rank him above Cobb, either. Sorry, I can't, nor can I rank him above Walter Johnson, Rogers Hornsby or Cy Young!
Anyway, ya'all will have your arguements, those are mine.
Here's the link to the entire article;
bleacherreport.com/articles/1977372-the-100-greatest-mlb-players-of-all-time?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=san-francisco-giants
boly
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 4, 2014 12:13:05 GMT -5
First of all, and yes I know I've said it before, you can't seperate Bonds from roids. It defines his career. It's like trying to seperate Joe Jackson from the Black Sox scandal. Same with Clemens. The guy who I think is too low on the list is Griffey. I agree with Jeter over Morgan. Jeter won more and did it for so much longer.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 4, 2014 13:33:27 GMT -5
Allen---First of all, and yes I know I've said it before, you can't seperate Bonds from roids. It defines his career. It's like trying to seperate Joe Jackson from the Black Sox scandal Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time#ixzz2v1JgDm1O---boly says--- And I don't disagree with you. But even IF we took his career as is, and this is my point, he STILL doesn't deserve to be #3. As I said, ALLLLL anyone ever seems to look at is offense; where the player is as a hitter. And there is so much more to the game than that. Steriods or not, I'll take a healthy Mantle, Aaron, or Dimaggio over Bonds in a heartbeat. More complete players. boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 4, 2014 14:04:16 GMT -5
Boly -- I do have a huge problem with Bonds being listed at # 3. And this is the problem I have with most of these lists; the seem to focus ONLY upon hitting ability, and little more. Rog -- First of all, I have seen a ton of lists, and there is a lot of disagreement between them. Many of the players we haven't even seen. I too will disagree with virtually list, and I can validate my disagreements, but it still comes down to how one views and values the various parts of a player's performance. As for Bonds' being ranked #3, I can see one's arguing that Barry wouldn't have been ranked as highly if he hadn't taken steroids more than I can see them having a problem with his being ranked #3 all-time. Let's look at some facts: . Barry ranks #2 all-time in Wins Above Replacement, between Babe Ruth and Willie Mays. . He ranks #3 all-time in offensive Wins Above Replacement, between Ruth and Cobb on top and Mays and Aaron on the other side. . He has won more MVP's than any player, is a 14-time All-Star, and won 8 Gold Gloves. . He is #6 in on-base percentage and #5 in slugging and #4 in OPS. . He ranks #1 career in home runs, #3 in runs scored and #4 in total bases. . He is #4 all-time in RBI's, #1 in walks and #1 by a country mile in intentional walks. . He is #2 in extra base hits, #2 in times on base, and #1 in runs created. . He is the only player to every steal 500 bases and hit 500 home runs. There are a few other great players who could be put above Bonds, but what would our reasons be? As for most most position players' making the Hall for their hitting, most pitchers also make it for their pitching. The value of fielding is being appreciated more these days and guys like Bill Mazeroski and Ozzie Smith obviously didn't make the Hall for their bat, but the nature of the game still comes down to pitcher against hitter. Which players would we have in the Hall based on their gloves who aren't there already? I myself can see how an argument might be made for a few more than two players ahead of Barry, but I can't say he is CLEARLY ranked too high here. We can certainly criticize him for using steroids, but the PERFORMANCE he put on the field can't be criticized much. He probably played at a Hall of Fame level in four of the five tools. Just yesterday I heard Peter Gammons say that even prior to 1999 (steroids), Barry was one of the greatest players of all time. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time#ixzz2v11rC7Yc
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 4, 2014 15:13:08 GMT -5
Boly -- Cobb listed at 6, and Teddy Baseball at 5. What? Cobb could hit, run, steal bases and play superb defense... Ted was just a hitter Rog -- I myself have Ty ranked ahead of Ted. The strongest argument I can give is that when the first Hall of Fame ballot was done -- a ballot that included Ruth, Johnson and others -- Ty got the most votes. On the other hand, Ted is considered by some (not me, although close) to be the game's greatest hitter. He wasn't a great defender by any means, but I don't think Ty was considered especially good in the field, either (although better than Ted). Ted hit for more power, of course, but part of that was the era in which he played. He did draw a lot more walks though, and getting on base was more important in Ty's era than in Ted's. I'm with you on Ty above Ted. But again, I can see how others would go the other way. The more I think about it, the more I agree with you on Ty over Ted. I've usually had him behind on the the top three. But all these players were so good, one can make an argument for them. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time?page=1#scrollTo=19069#ixzz2v1gnrwJN
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 4, 2014 15:24:15 GMT -5
Boly -- Yeah, Barry could hit, and yeah, he was a pretty good basesteal and LF. But he couldn't throw! He couldn't! You can't rank him in front of Aaron who played in an era was basestealing wasn't a big deal! If it had been, he and Mays would have had a ton more! Especially Willie! Rog -- Babe could certainly throw better than Barry -- but he wasn't as good overall in the field. Babe stole home a lot more than Barry, too, but he wasn't nearly the base runner. I would still rank Babe #1 -- and pretty much easliy so -- but it doesn't take a complete game to be the best. As for Barry ahead of Hank and Willie, I'll go with just one reason: Barry got on base at a .444 clip, while Hank and Willie were at only a very good but not great .374 and .384. Would you rather have a guy who got on base and threw as Barry or a guy who got on base and threw as Hank and Willie? I think that one's pretty much a no-brainer. Let's not forget too that while Barry's arm was a defiency, he did a nice job of compensating by playing hitters particularly well, getting to balls quickly and having a very quick release. I wouldn't rank Barry above Willie -- although I could make a strong argument as to why one might -- but I see no problem with Barry's ranking above Hank. Every 100 times they came to the plate, Barry made 7 more outs. That's a quarter of a game. That's quite significant. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time?page=1#scrollTo=19071#ixzz2v1jS4UyW
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 4, 2014 15:31:06 GMT -5
Boly -- Pujols at 21. That's absurd! Again, a hitter, so-so to above average in the field. Rog -- The guy I thought got most robbed here was Honus Wagner at only #13. Look him up, look carefully, and I believe you'll see what I mean. I used to be more obstinate in my opinion, but now I realize these guys were all great, and there are going to be differences of opinion -- even among smart and well-versed people. I wouldn't have picked Albert at #21 -- probably not too close. But for a solid decade, he might have been the greatest right-handed hitter the game has seen. As for his fielding, he was considered to be a pretty good first baseman, winning two Gold Gloves. As for hitting, when Albert was hot, he made the game look like almost like slow-pitch softball. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time?page=1#scrollTo=19072#ixzz2v1mKeH00
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 1:57:34 GMT -5
@jeter at 41, and Joe Morgan at 48. Again I say, What? Joe simply could do more things on the field and at the bat then Jeter could. Period. Rog -- I would agree with you, but Jeter had the advantage of playing a premium position. Both were tremendous players, and to see them ranked within seven positions of each other -- either way -- probably shouldn't be a shocker. The MLB Network just mentioned Jeter as the 2nd-best shortstop since Honus Wagner. With Rogers Hornsby in the mix, it's unlikely Joe ranks higher than that among second basemen. For the most part I'm not disagreeing with you on these, Boly. I'm merely pointing out that it may be closer than you think. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time?page=1#scrollTo=19073#ixzz2v4GBSKhl
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 2:19:35 GMT -5
Boly -- Joe Dimaggio at 18, behind the likes of Clemons and Honus Wagner. No question, Honus was a great player. Both were superb in the field, but Joe hit for more power, drove in more runs. Rog -- I have seen great variations in where Joe was ranked, but I'm not sure I've yet seen Joe ranked higher than Honus. As you mention, both were stellar fielders, but Honus did so at the premium position of shortstop. I think many would rank Honus as the top shortstop of all time, while I don't think many at all would rank Joe that high. Honus had a marvelous 693 career stolen bases. Oh wait. He didn't have "just" 693 total. He had 693 more than Joe. You mention Joe's having more power, but they played in very different eras. Based on the run-scoring of their eras and the parks they played in, Honus actually had a tiny bit more power than Joe. I know you love aggressive base running, Boly. I'm not quite sure how that is congruent with your choosing the far less aggressive Joe, who played a less important defensive position. Actually, Honus had the versatility to play pretty much every position except catcher. I know you like small ball. Honus had 207 sacrifice bunts. Oh wait again. That was 207 more than Joe. You mentioned that Joe drove in more runs. Actually Honus drove in 349 more than Joe. Of course, that was because Honus played 21 years to Joe's 13. When one considers the respective run-scoring environments the two players played in, Honus was pretty much on a par with Joe. In fact, while Joe impressively led his league in RBI's twice, Honus did so in five different seasons. In fact, Honus led in pretty much of everything more than Joe did. Despite playing a non-hitting position. I think Honus' being ranked only #13 is clearly worse than Joe's being ranked #19. Take a look at Honus, and I think you'll be surprised what you see. I think Honus is the best shortstop of all time, by a landslide. The only guy I can think of who was close is Alex Rodriguez. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time?page=1#scrollTo=19077#ixzz2v4Lc24HH
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 2:21:25 GMT -5
By the way, I WOULD rank Joe ahead of Clemente, as much as I loved Roberto. Obviously though, others see it differently than you and I.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 2:37:43 GMT -5
Boly -- Yeah, Barry could hit, and yeah, he was a pretty good basesteal and LF. But he couldn't throw! He couldn't! You can't rank him in front of Aaron who played in an era was basestealing wasn't a big deal! If it had been, he and Mays would have had a ton more! Especially Willie! Rog -- Many would agree with you, but I'm not so sure. First of all, Barry came witin 64 steals of having as many as the two combined. Barry also stole at a higher success rate than either of the other two. Could Mays and Aaron have stolen a ton more bases if the game had valued it more? Probably. But how MANY more? When Maury Wills demonstrate that steals were still a viable weapon by being the thief of bags, dad, with 104 steals in 1962, it wasn't as if Willie suddenly began to steal bases at a higher rate. In fact, over the rest of Willie's CAREER (11 more seasons), he stole six fewer than Maury's 104 in one season. Hank actually DID begin to steal more, but he never exceeded 31 in a single season. Yeah, I've heard the same thing said about Willie, many times. But sometimes it pays to look at the facts which might support fact or support myth. Regarding Willie, perhaps he WOULD have hit far more homers -- some say 100 -- if he hadn't played in Candlestick. Still, during his Candlestick years, he hit more at home than on the road. That 100 more homers estimate might have been a bit exaggerated. Personally, I like to CHALLENGE conventional wisdom. When we look closer at it, it doesn't always stand up well. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time?page=1#scrollTo=19079#ixzz2v4RgWWnW
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 2:49:54 GMT -5
Boly -- As much as I dislike Pete Rose, him being at 37 is an atrocity. Everyone seems to forget what a good defensive player he was, STARING at 3B, LF, RF, and 2B. Rog -- I don't think Pete was all that good a defender. The only position at which he won a Gold Glove was as an outfielder, and I doubt very much he deserved those. How is it that we're giving Rose so much credit for playing multiple positions and not Wagner? Honus was very likely the better defender, and certainly did so at more premium positions. Pete had amazing intensity. I saw him literally shake the left field fence -- vigorously and adamently -- after a home run went over his head. He became the hits leader mostly because he played a long, long time -- not because of his .303 career average. The man whose hits record he broke, Ty Cobb, batted .367. You probably aren't the only one who would rate Pete higher than 37, although I haven't seen many who rank him above that by MUCH. I would need to go into more depth of research, but I doubt he would make my top 50. And I was a guy who PLAYED somewhat like Pete when it came to intensity. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time?page=1#scrollTo=19080#ixzz2v4W55Ps2
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 3:03:07 GMT -5
Boly -- Steriods or not, I'll take a healthy Mantle, Aaron, or Dimaggio over Bonds in a heartbeat. More complete players. Rog -- I won't get into the other two, but let's compare Barry with Joe in the five tools: Hitting -- If we consider on-base percentage to be an important component of hitting, Barry wins pretty easily. Hitting with Power -- Pretty obvious. Fielding -- I think this one is close, although I'll give the edge to Joe. Throwing -- Pretty obvious. Running -- Barry stole 484 MORE bases than Joe. Again, pretty obvious. I give three of the five areas to Barry and place him fairly close (8 Gold Gloves, after all, even though he wasn't playing center field) in fielding. Joe enjoyed a large advantage in throwing -- about the same as Barry enjoyed in running. Barry also played nine seasons. Oh, wait. That was nine more seasons than Joe. (By the way, I would be very, very remiss if I didn't mention that Joe missed three seasons due to World War II.) Joe was a great player. Barry was one of the VERY greatest. Look at Barry's track record. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time?page=1#scrollTo=19081#ixzz2v4ZRYX4M
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 5, 2014 11:08:07 GMT -5
Rog -- The guy I thought got most robbed here was Honus Wagner at only #13. Look him up, look carefully, and I believe you'll see what I mean.
---boly says---
Back in the mid 60's I worked with an old guy from Pittsburgh who grew up watching Honus play.
His words, not mine: "Back then, the SS played IN THE BASELINE, not back like they do today. Because they played so close, their range was not very good because they were closer to the plate."
He also said, "Maury Wills is a much better defensive player than Hounus. Much better range."
Thing is, I won't argue with you about Wagner's numbers. in ANY ERA, they are spectacular!
And from all accounts, the guy flat out had a rocket for an arm, and was so versitile he could play virtually any position on the field with exemplary ease.
Still, that old man's words stick with me.
But I agree: Honus gets short changed.
boly
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 5, 2014 11:11:23 GMT -5
Rog---
Joe was a great player. Barry was one of the VERY greatest. Look at Barry's track record.
--boly says---
No question, steriods not included, Barry is one of the very best ever. But I'll take Joe.
He didn't steal because he didn't have to.
IMHO, he was a more complete player.
boly
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 5, 2014 11:24:15 GMT -5
Joe didn't cheat. End of argument.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 5, 2014 12:21:37 GMT -5
@jeter at 41, and Joe Morgan at 48. Again I say, What? Joe simply could do more things on the field and at the bat then Jeter could. Period. Rog -- I would agree with you, but Jeter had the advantage of playing a premium position. Both were tremendous players, and to see them ranked within seven positions of each other -- either way -- probably shouldn't be a shocker. The MLB Network just mentioned Jeter as the 2nd-best shortstop since Honus Wagner. With Rogers Hornsby in the mix, it's unlikely Joe ranks higher than that among second basemen. For the most part I'm not disagreeing with you on these, Boly. I'm merely pointing out that it may be closer than you think. dk..Hornsby was a second baseman......fair fielder, more than great hitter....bad dude, gambler...ex-Giant
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 5, 2014 13:31:26 GMT -5
--Don--bad dude, gambler...ex-Giant
--boly says---
I hadn't know those things about him, Don.
Can you elaborate a tad on "bad dude" please?"
thanks!
boly
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 5, 2014 13:46:24 GMT -5
The stories I've heard have Hornsby pegged as more than a bit of a racist. I'm surprised Don euphemized it, as he is prone to calling people racist, even when they're not.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 5, 2014 14:17:15 GMT -5
--Don--bad dude, gambler...ex-Giant --boly says--- I hadn't know those things about him, Don. Can you elaborate a tad on "bad dude" please?" thanks! boly dk from all the stories I heard about Hornsby, he was always fighting with the front office and a lot of that had to do with his gambling...he lost a lot of money and rang up big debts....other players didn't like him, especially when he was a manager...the Giants got rid of Hornsby because (rumor) he spent more time at the race track than on baseball...never met him, so I'm just passing on the stories I heard...the internet has more info on him...
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 5, 2014 14:22:57 GMT -5
The stories I've heard have Hornsby pegged as more than a bit of a racist. I'm surprised Don euphemized it, as he is prone to calling people racist, even when they're not
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 14:33:52 GMT -5
Boly -- Back in the mid 60's I worked with an old guy from Pittsburgh who grew up watching Honus play. His words, not mine: "Back then, the SS played IN THE BASELINE, not back like they do today. Because they played so close, their range was not very good because they were closer to the plate." Rog -- The game keeps evolving. Today the big defensive change is the overshift. I believe I heard that twice as many overshifts were used last season as were used the year before, which itself had twice as many as the previous year. This is another positive result of analytics. As an aside, I believe if the Yankees in the 1962 World Series had been employing the overshift used in Willie McCovey's later years, his line drive would have had a much better chance of going through and winning the World Series in the bottom of the 9th inning of the 7th game. Boly -- He also said, "Maury Wills is a much better defensive player than Hounus. Much better range." Rog -- I hadn't really heard much about Honus' defense being all that good. I was going by your comment. As for the range advantage for Wills, I suspect it stemmed both from Maury's being much quicker on his feet and from Wagner's playing so close to the plate. Thanks for mentioning the playing in the base line thing. I hadn't heard it. I think it helps to explain the dead ball era. If infielders were playing closer to the plate, it would have been easier to hit the ball past them, another factor that rewarded contact. The question is, why did the infielders play so close? I was going to write that it was probably because they had a harder time getting the ball out of the much lesser gloves they wore, but I would think those gloves were just as easy to get the ball out of once you actually caught it. The poorly designed gloves made it harder to catch the ball, and there were far more errors back then. I mean MULTIPLES of today's number of errors. Maybe the infielders played closer so they would have time to regain bobbled balls and still throw the runner out. One would have thought that baseball instinct would have gradually moved the infielders back as they viewed doing so as a test of their throwing arms. And that is likely what happened over time. Why did it take them so long to figure it out? The only thing I can think of would be the frequent bobbles caused by the badly designed gloves. Boly -- Thing is, I won't argue with you about Wagner's numbers. in ANY ERA, they are spectacular! And from all accounts, the guy flat out had a rocket for an arm, and was so versitile he could play virtually any position on the field with exemplary ease. Still, that old man's words stick with me. But I agree: Honus gets short changed. Rog -- I think a good argument can be developed to put Honus in the top 5. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time#ixzz2v75BqgHP
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 15:38:58 GMT -5
I'm curious as to why Barry Bonds is downgraded so heavily here because of his arm. Clearly it wasn't very strong, but he used assertive methods to help compensate.
If we could choose one of the five tools for a player to be missing, unless he were a pitcher, wouldn't we choose throwing? It seems by far the least detrimental.
The comment was made that Joe DiMaggio was a more complete player than Barry. Joe was also a more complete player than Babe Ruth. Ruth's arm was obviously strong, and he could hit and hit with power, but his fielding and running weren't anything special. As an aside, I believe Babe made the last out of a World Series by being thrown out attempting to steal.
Wins Above Replacement aren't a perfect measure of a ballplayer. But it's about as good as we've got. Barry AVERAGED 8.1 WAR per season over 21 years. Only once in his 13-year career did Joe reach more than 8.2. And that was 9.1, a figure Barry exceeded SEVEN times. Barry's career WAR was more than TWICE as much as Joe's. WAR includes defense and base running as well as hitting.
Barry played until he was 43 years old. Joe played only until he was 36.
Stats don't tell the entire tale, but when one guy's WAR is so MUCH higher than another's, it's tough to argue on behalf of the 2nd guy.
As for Joe's not stealing bases because he didn't have to, there is likely some truth to that. But it isn't as if his Yankees were so stacked they didn't need to steal at all. His teammates stole about 30 times as many bases as Joe did.
One could argue that with hitters such as Willie McCovey, Orlando Cepeda and Jim Ray Hart behind him, Willie Mays didn't need to steal either. Yet Willie stole 11 times as many bases as Joe.
Joe played three seasons with the ill and aging Lou Gehrig. Lou stole as many bases as Joe (13).
I think Joe could run a little bit. He was said to cover a lot of center field ground with his lengthy strides. That makes it seem all the more likely that Joe cost the Yankees more runs by not stealing than Barry cost the Giants with his arm.
Was Joe a better ALL-AROUND player than Barry? Perhaps. Was he a better PLAYER period? That one is a lot tougher to argue.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 5, 2014 17:48:30 GMT -5
If Joe had loaded up on the roids, perhaps he could have played until 43 as well. He had the integrity and self respect to retire when his skills diminished, rather than use illegal drugs to try and hang on. Why persist with these arguments about Bonds as if his stats are legitimate? The numbers are all tainted. To compare him to guys who played clean is ridiculous, and does a disservice to the guys who played clean, the game itself, and its fans. Let's just leave Bonds as what he is: a drug addled cheater not worthy of discussions such as these.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 20:10:16 GMT -5
Allen -- If Joe had loaded up on the roids, perhaps he could have played until 43 as well. He had the integrity and self respect to retire when his skills diminished, rather than use illegal drugs to try and hang on. Why persist with these arguments about Bonds as if his stats are legitimate? The numbers are all tainted. To compare him to guys who played clean is ridiculous, and does a disservice to the guys who played clean, the game itself, and its fans. Let's just leave Bonds as what he is: a drug addled cheater not worthy of discussions such as these. Rog -- Although I agree with some of them, what you have said here is mostly opinion. What I have stated in comparing Bonds and DiMaggio is mostly fact. Here is another fact for you. Many believe Barry began taking steroids when he suffered a serious injury in 1999. It was his 14th season, one more than Joe played. Barry's WAR -- likely before he began using steroids -- was already 25% higher than Joe's. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time#ixzz2v8kxQHsW
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 5, 2014 20:35:24 GMT -5
The stories I've heard have Hornsby pegged as more than a bit of a racist. I'm surprised Don euphemized it, as he is prone to calling people racist, even when they're not dk..my answer got lost...I never heard anything about Hornsby being a racist.....Ty Cobb was well known as devote racist...I call people out when their talk makes them appear to be racist..if the shoe fits, wear it....
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 5, 2014 23:34:06 GMT -5
Not true Don. Not true at all. You label anyone who disagrees with Obama's dismantling of the US as a racist, when in actuality, he isn't even black. My problem with him is that he's a liar, a coward, and totally incompetent and disengaged when it comes to foreign policy. For guys like Putin, Asaad, Karzai, et al, dealing with Obama must be like playing chess with a monkey. Now, I'm sure you'll call me racist for comparing Barack to a monkey.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 5, 2014 23:41:00 GMT -5
Rog, you act as if an opinion is worse than cancer. If we all just recited facts, what a boring place this would be.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 5, 2014 23:53:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 6, 2014 1:02:24 GMT -5
It doesn't matter when he started. In this instance we are considering his entire career, and in that case the numbers are fraudulent and therefore meaningless.
|
|